RETAILER FINED

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 77, 27 September 1941, Page 11

RETAILER FINED

CASE OF PROFITEERING

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, September 26. A charge of having sold a pair of women's shoes at a price that was unreasonably high was brought against *E. E. Leaning, bootseller; Queen Street, in the Magistrate's Court. Mr. V. R. Meredith, representing the Crown, said the charge was laid under Section 32 of the Board of. Trade Act, 1919, the expressed intention of which was to prevent profiteering. Cyril Mackley, investigating officer for the Price Tribunal, said that after a complaint had been received from a purchaser he had found shoes of the same type as those sold to the complainant by the defendant for 57s 6d being retailed for 30s. The manufacturers sold such shoes at 23s 4d plus sales tax, less 2£ per cent for three pairs or more, and the defendant had told him that he had bought this pair among a job lot the price to him being 15s 6d. This meant that his profit amounted to 271 per cent.. Mr. Meredith said that most retailers were content with a profit of 52 per cent The defendant said in evidence that shoes of this type were now being retailed generally for 52s 6d. Those selling at 30s and 32s 6d were ftiade of New Zealand leather. Shoes sold from his shop were of English leather. The Magistrate, Mr. Hunt, imposed a fine of £25 and costs. The maximum fine, he said, was £200, or three months' imprisonment. If there were any more of these cases he would see that a higher penalty was imposed.